Is Polymarket legal in Nevada?

The Gaming Control Board filed a civil enforcement action in the District Court for Carson City on January 16, 2026, against three companies: Blockratize, Inc. d/b/a Polymarket; QCX LLC d/b/a Polymarket US; and Adventure One QSS, Inc. d/b/a Polymarket (Board release). The case is No. 26 OC 00012 1B. The Board's position is that sports event contracts, and certain other event contracts, are wagering under Nevada law, so whoever offers them needs a state gaming license. The court wrote that "the record at this early stage in the proceedings indicates" the three companies are not licensed under the Nevada Gaming Control Act (TRO order, p.65).

The court turned down the Board's first request for a restraining order on January 23, without prejudice and without reaching the merits: the complaint wasn't verified, the supporting declaration wasn't sworn, and counsel hadn't certified the efforts made to give notice. The Board refiled on January 26. On January 29 Judge Jason D. Woodbury granted the renewed request and signed a 14-day restraining order covering all three companies (p.72). In his reasons he held that the Commodity Exchange Act, "fairly interpreted, does not vest exclusive jurisdiction over POLYMARKET's contracts with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission" (p.66). That is the argument Polymarket makes, and at this stage the court did not accept it.

Polymarket moved the case to federal court in Nevada on February 5. Judge Miranda Du sent it back on March 2, finding that Polymarket was not "acting under" a federal officer and that the Board's claims arise under state law (remand order, pp.1, 10). While Polymarket sought a stay, the parties agreed to extend the restraining order to April 6 and to hold the remand until then (stipulation, paras. 10-11). Judge Du denied the stay on March 12 (order, p.5), and on May 21 a Ninth Circuit panel did the same, writing that "litigating in state court does not inflict irreparable harm on Polymarket" (order, p.3).

Back in Carson City, on Friday, May 29, Judge Woodbury issued a ruling "granting the Board's motion for a preliminary injunction against QCX LLC, dba Polymarket US" (Board release, June 1). The release said a written order was forthcoming. That order is in force.

The January restraining order is the one text we have that sets out the terms. It enjoins the three companies and their "principals, employees, or agents" from "operating or offering a market in Nevada that involves 'events-based contracts' without a valid license issued in accordance with Chapter 463 of Nevada Revised Statutes" (p.72). It defines events-based contracts to include any "percentage game," "sports pool" or "wager" under Nevada law (pp.72-73). The court's reasons name the contracts it had in front of it: college basketball, college and professional football, and elections, and a commission Polymarket takes on contracts purchased through its system (p.66).

The May 29 injunction is described differently. The Board and the Attorney General both name QCX LLC (Polymarket US) as the company enjoined, not the other two, and the Attorney General names three categories. The Nevada Attorney General's June 3 release says "Polymarket will not be allowed to offer sports-, election- or entertainment-related event contracts within Nevada while the State's enforcement action against them continues." We haven't retrieved the written injunction, so that list comes from the state's own summary rather than the order. Polymarket's Ninth Circuit filing of July 27 confirms from the other side that the state court "entered a preliminary injunction against Defendant Polymarket US" (brief p.2, PDF p.3).

Two products share the Polymarket name, and the order matters only for one of them. Polymarket US is QCX LLC, which the CFTC designated a contract market in July 2025 (designation order). The international site, polymarket.com, lists the entire United States as close-only, meaning people can close positions but not open new ones (Polymarket's geographic restrictions). That restriction is Polymarket's own and applies nationwide; it is not a Nevada order.

None of the Nevada filings we have read says anything about withdrawing funds or closing a position that was open before the orders took effect. The Attorney General's release doesn't address it either, and the written injunction, which might, hasn't been retrieved. For an account opened in Nevada, the venue's own notices are where an answer would appear.

A state order is not a tax ruling. Polymarket taxes covers the forms.

The federal appeal is about forum, not about whether the contracts are allowed. Polymarket appealed Judge Du's remand order to the Ninth Circuit (No. 26-1343) and filed its opening brief in June. On July 10 Nevada asked the court to pause that appeal until it decides three other Nevada appeals: KalshiEX v. Assad (No. 25-7516), North American Derivatives Exchange v. Nevada (No. 25-7187) and Robinhood Derivatives v. Dreitzer (No. 25-7831). The court granted the pause on July 14, and Polymarket asked it to reconsider on July 27, saying that it is not a party to those appeals and that their outcome would not resolve the removal question (Dkt. 27, brief pp.1-4). We haven't read a ruling on that motion, so whether the court has acted on it is not confirmed here.

On August 28, the Ninth Circuit decided Kalshi's appeal, and Kalshi has since asked the full court to rehear it (Kalshi's letter of September 25). We haven't found an order lifting the hold on Polymarket's appeal, but we couldn't read the current docket, so its status as of October 16 is not confirmed.

Meanwhile the enforcement case continues in Carson City, where the preliminary injunction stays in force until that court or a higher state court changes it. No date for a final hearing appears in the filings we hold.

The two cases run side by side. The same Board brought both, the same Carson City judge presides over both, and the state describes both injunctions as covering sports, election and entertainment contracts. Judge Du held a joint hearing on the two remand motions and sent both cases back to state court on March 2.

The timing and the history differ. The Board sent Kalshi a cease-and-desist letter in March 2025, Kalshi sued Nevada in federal court first, and the state's case against Kalshi was filed on February 17, 2026, a month after the Polymarket case. Kalshi's restraining order came on March 20, and Judge Woodbury granted its preliminary injunction from the bench on April 3, nearly two months before the May 29 preliminary injunction against Polymarket US; the Board's later filings cite an "Amended PI Order" dated May 18. Is Kalshi legal in Nevada? follows that case, and Kalshi at the Supreme Court follows the federal question both companies raise.